Management Action Recommendations

The Director makes recommendations to the Chief of Police about policy changes or improvements. Recommendations which are considered Management Action are usually a result of an OPA investigation into a particular case. The Director determines that an allegation in a case is "Not Sustained - Management Action" when the actions of the SPD employee are due to a deficiency in policy, training or supervision, rather than the act of one person.

This page includes all Management Action Recommendations (MARs) made by the OPA Director and the responses provided by the Chief of Police. The Chief provides updates to OPA regarding the status of the implementation of recommendations. Since many MARs contain more than one recommendation, we will provide details regarding the specific status of each recommendation for those MARs with multiple recommendations in the sections below.

RECEIVED: OPA has submitted its MAR to the SPD Chief of Police. SPD has acknowledged receipt of the MAR, but has not provided a substantive response.

IN PROGRESS: OPA has received a response from SPD indicating any action steps to be taken in response to OPA's recommendations.

COMPLETED-SOME: OPA considers the MAR completed; SPD implemented only a portion of the recommendations made by OPA, or addressed those recommendations in a manner not proposed by OPA.

COMPLETED-DECLINED ACTION: OPA considers the MAR completed; SPD has indicated they will not be taking action on any of the recommendations made by OPA.

Last Updated: 07/06/2018

Management Actions

Status - RECEIVEDOPA submitted these MARs to the SPD Chief of Police on November 15th and November 29th, 2018.

Fourth Quarter 2018 MARs

As OPA works to streamline its processes and increase collaboration and transparency with SPD and other police accountability partners, these letters are an interim solution and way to consolidate correspondence for fourth quarter 2018 MARs. OPA and SPD will be continuing to refine our processes on reporting and tracking of MARs, so please stay tuned and be patient with us during this time of transition.

Status - RECEIVEDOPA submitted these MARs to the SPD Interim Chief of Police on July 2, 2018.

Second Quarter 2018 MARsAs OPA works to streamline its processes and increase collaboration and transparency with SPD and other police accountability partners, this letter was an interim solution and way to consolidate correspondence for second quarter 2018 MARs. OPA and SPD will be continuing to refine our processes on reporting and tracking of MARs, so please stay tuned and be patient with us during this time of transition.

The MARs addressed in the letter are in regards to the following cases: 2017OPA-0511, 2017OPA-0980, 2017OPA-1008, 2017OPA-1091, 2017OPA-1132, 2017OPA-1196, 2017OPA-1301, 2017OPA-1289, 2018OPA-0553, and 2018OPA-0101.

Status - RECEIVEDOPA submitted these MARs to the SPD Interim Chief of Police on April 5, 2018.

(Remaining) First Quarter 2018 MARsAs OPA works to streamline its processes and increase collaboration and transparency with SPD and other police accountability partners, this letter was an interim solution and way to consolidate correspondence for first quarter 2018 MARs. OPA and SPD will be continuing to refine our processes on reporting and tracking of MARs, so please stay tuned and be patient with us during this time of transition.

The MARs addressed in the letter are in regards to the following cases: 2017OPA-0031; 2017OPA-0318; 2017OPA-0420; 2017OPA-0667; 2017OPA-0705; 2017OPA-0751; 2017OPA-0755; 2017OPA-0813; 2017OPA-0820; 2017OPA-0909; 2017OPA-0937; 2017OPA-0967; 2017OPA-1015; and 2017OPA-1131.

Status - RECEIVEDOPA submitted this MAR to the SPD Interim Chief of Police on March 9, 2018.

OPA's MAR - March 9, 2018This Management Action Recommendation relates to OPA case 2017OPA-0270 in which OPA investigated an allegation that an officer improperly shut off his In-Car Video (ICV) prior to concluding his law enforcement activity. Though his actions were inconsistent with existing SPD policy, the officer raised the concern that the ICV policy fails to include an exception, similar to the exception provided in the Body Worn Camera (BWC) policy, which permits officers to stop recording as long as the employees "state on the recording their intention to stop recording and explain the basis for that decision." OPA foresees numerous scenarios in which it would be reasonable, if not advantageous, to include this exception for ICV recording and recommends SPD update the ICV policy regarding the exception.

Status - RECEIVEDOPA submitted this MAR to the SPD Interim Chief of Police on March 9, 2018.

OPA's MAR - March 9, 2018This Management Action Recommendation is related to OPA case 2016OPA-0719 in which OPA investigated an allegation that two officers worked secondary employment without a valid and approved work permit, potentially in violation of SPD Policy 5.120(IV). During their OPA interviews, both employees stated that, while they were paid for their work, they donated that money to charity. As such, they considered their secondary employment to constitute volunteer work and did not believe that they were required to obtain work permits in advance of engaging in that employment. The policy does not explicitly discuss volunteer work or work for which an officer is being paid but where that payment is being donated to charity. OPA recommends that the Department provide clear guidance to its employees in regard to volunteer and charity-related secondary employment.

Status - IN PROGRESSOPA submitted this MAR to the SPD Interim Chief of Police on January 25, 2018. SPD responded on February 7, 2018, and indicated that the work to consolidate and update unit manuals such as the one referenced in this MAR is being conducted in 2018 by the Audit, Policy, and Research Section.

OPA's MAR - January 25, 2018This Management Action Recommendation relates to OPA case 2017OPA-0571 which arose out of May Day 2016.The primary allegation was that the Named Employees, both assigned to SWAT at that time, used less lethal force tools on demonstrators in violation of policy. The Complainant contended that the four applications of force engaged in by the Named Employees using these tools were not reasonable, necessary or proportional. Though the primary allegations were found to be inconclusive for one Named Employee and lawful and proper for the other, OPA also determined that an allegation under SPD Policy 8.300-POL-8 against both of the Named Employees would be investigated. This policy requires that “Specialty units that utilize unique weaponry will maintain unit manuals and training records which contain an inventory and specific guidance for each weapon.” The policy further mandates that: “Officers in specialty units shall use their weaponry in a manner that is objectively reasonable per the given circumstances.” OPA found it clear that the weaponry used in this action – specifically, a pepperball launcher and a FN 303 device – were included among the specialty unit weaponry to which this policy applied.

During its investigation, OPA sought to verify that there existed within the SWAT unit “manuals and training records which contain an inventory and specific guidance for each weapon.” While requested from SWAT, these material were not provided to OPA. Based on this, it is unclear whether these materials exist. If they do not, SWAT is not in compliance with this section of the policy.

OPA recommends that if these materials do not exist, the Department should ensure that SWAT, and any other specialty unit that has such weaponry, create and upkeep the manuals and training records required by SPD Policy 8.300-POL-8.

SPD's Response - Issued February 7, 2018 SPD responded on February 7, 2018 and acknowledged that this issue was identified by the Audit, Policy, and Research Section (APRS) in 2017. While unit manuals have evolved organically over the years, in 2018 APRS is working to consolidate all manuals within APRS and the Department has been reaching out to Precincts, Investigative, and Specialty units to (1) determine what manuals currently exist and (2) offer assistance in updating. While manuals may provide additional guidance, however, it remains the Department's position that whether force is reasonable, necessary, and proportional, regardless of unit assignment or instrument, it is to be assessed consistent with the overriding parameters of Manual Section 8.200.

Status - IN PROGRESSOPA submitted this MAR to the SPD Interim Chief of Police on January 10, 2018. SPD responded on February 7, 2018

OPA's MAR - January 10, 2018This Management Action Recommendation relates to eight OPA cases that raised concerns regarding SPD’s Bias Review policy where in some cases the actions taken by SPD were contrary to the policy despite officers’ best efforts to the contrary. This MAR seeks to correct several flaws in the policy including a conflict in policy as to the referral of bias allegations as serious misconduct versus a Bias Review and the unworkable subjective requirement that a Bias Review may only be completed when the sergeant can demonstrate that the matter has been resolved to the complainant's satisfaction.

Accordingly, OPA proposed several changes to SPD Policies 5.002-POL-5, 5.140-POL-6 and 5.140-POL-7. OPA suggests the Department should modify the policy to instruct sergeants that a Bias Review is appropriate if two elements are met: (1) the sergeant believes that the allegation of bias is without merit; and (2) OPA's contact information has been offered and the complainant either did not wish to proceed with a complaint or did not respond. Additionally, where complainants are reasonably believed to be experiencing homelessness, supervisors should endeavor to provide OPA contact information directly to the complainants. The Department should also reaffirm in training the policy's requirement that supervisors provide specific information to complainants regarding how to file OPA complaints.

SPD's Response - Issued February 7, 2018 SPD responded on February 7, 2018 addressing both concerns identified in the MAR. Regarding the first issue, the problematic language concerning the entry of Bias Reviews in lieu of Complaint Entries, the Department agrees that this policy should be revisited. Concerning the second point, that Bias Review Entry in lieu of Complaint Entry is in conflict with Manual Section 5.002-POL-5 regarding reporting provisions, the Department recognizes this and will correct consistent with OPA's recommendation. APRS currently has these policies in its queue to address, which it will do as to both of the issues raised, in full collaboration with the CPC and OPA.

Status - IN PROGRESSOPA contacted SPD regarding the status of SPD's actions regarding this MAR on October 13, 2017. As of November 13, 2017, SPD indicated that policies related to this MAR were under development with the SPD's Audit, Policy, and Research Section.

OPA's MAR - Issued June 29, 2016During a review of an incident which involved an armed individual who endangered the lives of the public, OPA's investigation revealed some issues with SPD's incident command in situations where a subject created a dynamic and rapidly changing environment in which police commanders, supervisors and officers made split-second decisions. OPA recommended:

1. Formation of an internal SPD "Study Team" to carefully examine the command, control and individual actions that made up the many attempts to stop and capture the suspect in this incident.2. A thorough review and reconciliation of SPD's policies and training concerning the use of police vehicles to end a pursuit and/or stop a driver who poses a deadly threat.

SPD's Response - October 25, 2016SPD apologized for their delay in responding indicating that they had prepared a response last July to our June 29, 2016 letter, but did not respond until OPA submitted our October 18, 2016 MAR regarding Complex Indent Commands (2016-0462). SPD responded to both letters in one response indicating:

1. Regarding forming a "Study Team," SPD acknowledged the Department was currently exploring the feasibility of establishing a separate review board, similar to the concept of the Force Review Board (FRB), that would be dedicated to ensuring critical self-review and analysis of non-force-related events. Although this process is squarely outside the scope of the Department's consent decree, SPD indicated they would be consulting with the Monitoring Team and DOJ to explore how to establish such a board within existing bandwidth, organizational structures, and labor considerations. 2. Regarding review and reconciliation of SPD's policies and training, SPD indicated the Department has provided to the Monitoring Team and DOJ a draft revision of Manual Sections 13.031 - Vehicle Eluding/Pursuits and 8.300-POL-7 Use of Force - Vehicle-Related Force Tactics. According to SPD, these revisions would identify intentional vehicle-to-vehicle contacts as uses of force that may be used only when consistent with the use of force and reporting requirements, and reflect restrictions around the use of a vehicle as force. SPD also noted that it does not provide formal training on vehicle use of force tactics, given their use in only exigent circumstances. SPD defers to the Washington State Patrol for such training.

OPA's MAR - Issued October 18, 2016OPA completed an investigation into the fatal officer-involved shooting that took place on December 6, 2015. In particular, OPA investigated the use of deadly force by an officer who was part of a SWAT team that made contact with a subject who had endangered the lives of the public and police officers alike while engaged in a crime spree ranging from the Belltown neighborhood north of downtown Seattle, to the Laurelhurst/Wedgwood neighborhoods of northeast Seattle. Based on the results of this investigation, OPA renewed its previous recommendation to form "an internal SPD 'Study Team' to carefully examine the command, control and individual actions that made up the many attempts to stop and capture the suspect in this incident."

SPD's Response - Issued October 25, 2016SPD responded on October 25, 2016 in conjuntion with our MAR regarding Complex Indent Command and Use of A Police Vehicle as a Weapon (2016-0469). SPD responded to both letters in one response indicating:

1. Regarding forming a "Study Team," SPD acknowledged the Department was currently exploring the feasibility of establishing a separate review board, similar to the concept of the Force Review Board (FRB), that would be dedicated to ensuring critical self-review and analysis of non-force-related events. Although this process is squarely outside the scope of the Department's consent decree, SPD indicated they would be consulting with the Monitoring Team and DOJ to explore how to establish such a board within existing bandwidth, organizational structures, and labor considerations. 2. Regarding review and reconciliation of SPD's policies and training, SPD indicated the Department has provided to the Monitoring Team and DOJ a draft revision of Manual Sections 13.031 - Vehicle Eluding/Pursuits and 8.300-POL-7 Use of Force - Vehicle-Related Force Tactics. According to SPD, these revisions would identify intentional vehicle-to-vehicle contacts as uses of force that may be used only when consistent with the use of force and reporting requirements, and reflect restrictions around the use of a vehicle as force. SPD also noted that it does not provide formal training on vehicle use of force tactics, given their use in only exigent circumstances. SPD defers to the Washington State Patrol for such training.

Status - IN PROGRESSOPA contacted SPD regarding the status of SPD's actions regarding this MAR and as of November 13, 2017 this MAR is still in progress and is pending action by Seattle IT to implement a new timekeeping software solution.

OPA's MAR - Issued September 26, 2014As a result of an investigation into an anonymous complaint regarding excessive overtime spending in the Department's training unit, the OPA Director issued a special report detailing the investigation, and made three recommendations:

That steps are taken to ensure that adequate leadership, management oversight, supervisory control, and robust procedures are in place to enforce budget compliance, control overtime spending and align employee efforts with the goals and mission of the Department. This should begin immediately within the Education and Training Section (ETS), but extend to all of SPD as soon as possible.

1. That the Chief of Police formally invites the City Auditor to conduct an audit of the ETS, along with recommendations for systematic improvements, if appropriate. 2. That the Chief of Police implement without delay those recommendations made by the City Auditor that will reasonably be expected to improve the effectiveness and accountability of the ETS.

SPD's Response - Issued April 10, 2015SPD indicated to OPA that the Department has implemented SeaFin, a bi-weekly financial health meeting for the organization. Using available data, this process allows executive oversight of spending on a close to real-time basis. Every Captain and above has been trained in Summit, the accounting software for the Department. This allows commanders to search and analyze their overtime spending as well as their operational expense budget. Captains are also provided monthly summaries of where they stand in relation to their overtime budgets. Chief O'Toole requested that the City Auditor conduct an audit of the Education and Training Section as well as all overtime expenditures for the SPD. The City Auditor issued the SPD Overtime Controls Audit on April 11, 2016.

SPD's Response - Issued November 23, 2016 SPD informed OPA that the actions above are still being implemented to manage overtime, and they are currently in bargaining sessions with the unions regarding proposed revisions to the overtime use policy.

SPD's Response - Issued November 13, 2017 SPD reported to OPA that a timekeeping software solution that SPD previously received funding to implement, which would address concerns identified by the Department, the City Auditor, and OPA with respect to real-time and anticipated scheduling needs, and which the Department was on schedule to implement pre-IT consolidation, is now, post-IT consolidation, on hold pending action by Seattle IT to move the project forward.

Status - IN PROGRESSOPA contacted SPD regarding the status of SPD's actions regarding this MAR on October 13, 2017. As of November 13, 2017, SPD indicated that policies related to this MAR were under development with the SPD's Audit, Policy, and Research Section.

OPA's MAR - October 20, 2016OPA completed an investigation into an allegation that a Parking Enforcement Officer (PEO) failed to appear in Municipal Court in response to a valid subpoena served on that PEO. This mandatory court appearance was for a hearing on a vehicle impound the PEO had made. Impounded vehicles accumulate tow and storage fees that sometimes exceed the value of the vehicle. In order to prevent excessive charges to either the vehicle owner or the City, the Municipal Court schedules hearings within a day or two of receiving notice from the vehicle owner of his or her desire to contest the impound. In this case, the PEO received a subpoena to attend a hearing the next day but chose, instead, to attend a previously-scheduled, non-mandatory seminar sponsored by the Department. The Court did not excuse the PEO from its order to appear. As a result of the PEO's non-appearance, the vehicle was released from impound and the City was ordered to cover the accumulated tow and storage fees.

SPD's Response - October 25, 2016The SPD Legal Unit has been exploring opportunities to coordinate with Seattle Municipal Court on closing this loop on parking and traffic citations where the City is not represented; in addition, in response to OPA's recommendation, the Chief asked the Legal Unit to expedite engagement with the City Attorney's Office and the King County Prosecutor's Office to explore how SPD can best assure officers are meeting their obligations under Manual Section 5.190.

SPD's Response - November 23, 2016SPD updated OPA indicating that similar to the MAR regarding Officer Subpoenas (see OFFICER SUBPOENAS MAR) the SPD Legal Unit has implemented a process by which subpoenas are tracked to ensure delivery and acknowledge receipt. SPD is also working with the Seattle Municipal Court to discuss a shared protocol given that the court does not have a protocol or system in place to reliability affirm that officers appear, or alert when officers fail to appear, when summoned. Similar to concerns expressed in OFFICER SUBPOENAS (2014-0128) above, OPA encourages SPD to include a process for supervisor reporting and accountability for officers, including PEOs that fail to appear in court, which may result in costs to the City for refunded towing and impounding fees.

SPD's Response - November 23, 2016SPD updated OPA indicating that while technical and budget limitations have precluded the implementation of an automated system, the SPD Legal Unit has implemented a process by which subpoenas are tracked to ensure delivery and acknowledge receipt. SPD is also working with the Seattle Municipal Court to discuss a shared protocol given that the court does not have a protocol or system in place to reliability affirm that officers appear, or alert when officers fail to appear, when summoned. OPA will continue to monitor this issue until SPD and Seattle Municipal implement a reliable system of tracking subpoenas and notifying supervisors when police and parking enforcement officers fail to show up for court as required.

OPA's MAR - December 5, 2017OPA completed an investigation of an allegation that two officers failed to activate their ICV in violation of Department policy. The officers were involved in the arrest of a subject who, after being arrested, was secured on a gurney and transported to the King County Jail. The officers followed the ambulance and indicated on their ICV that they were following the ambulance to the jail and then made the decision to turn the ICV off. During their OPA interviews both employees contended that while transporting subjects needed to be recorded on the ICV, in this case they were not actually transporting the subject, but were only following the ambulance in which the subject was being transported.

OPA recommended to SPD that the Department consider whether it is the intent of the policy to require officers who are not themselves transporting a subject, but who are following another vehicle that is doing so, to record that law enforcement activity on ICV. OPA also suggests that the Department also evaluate the current policy's list of law enforcement activity that must be recorded to determine whether that list should be amplified or clarified to eliminate such confusion in the future.

Status - IN PROGRESSOPA contacted SPD regarding the status of SPD's actions regarding this MAR and as of November 13, 2017 this MAR is still in progress. SPD is seeking funding for the addition of a module to the current GovQA system to provide a tracking system for subpoenas.

OPA's MAR - Issued November 4, 2014Investigation into a case pointed out the need for the Department to improve its methods and processes for ensuring SPD officers appear in court as required by subpoena. In particular, SPD processes do not adequately notify supervisors in a timely fashion when employees fail to appear as witnesses in court.

SPD's Response - April 10, 2015According to SPD, the SPD Legal Unit and IT are developing a "Legal Track" system for subpoenas received by the Department. The system will generate automated emails to inform the officer of a subpoena; if no acknowledgment is received, a second email to the officer and supervisor will be sent, and lastly, the Legal Unit will follow up via telephone if needed. Court coordinators will also receive an email reporting weekly on expected court appearances and the opportunity to indicate any missed appearances. The Audit, Policy and Research Section ("APRS") and the SPD Legal Unit are revising SPD Manual 5.190, Court Appearances and Legal Proceedings, which is out of date.

SPD's Response - Issued November 23, 2016SPD is seeking IT support to expand the capacity of GovQA, the City’s public disclosure request tracking system, to add a module that would enable SPD to notify employees of witness subpoenas and track the officer’s/PEO’s compliance. An IT project request has been initiated and SPD is currently looking to secure funding for the upgrade. Should SPD identify a funding source, the policy will be revised once the module has been implemented.

Status - IN PROGRESSAfter repeated comments by the former OPA Auditor, and this MAR by OPA, Mayor Tim Burgess, on September 27, 2017 issued Executive Order 2017-09 directing a coordinated interdepartmental effort to require the Seattle Police Department to provide greater oversight through internal regulations and management of all secondary employment for SPD officers. On November 14, 2017 the SPD released a Response to the Executive Order indicating a new civilian led system should be created to supervise and manage secondary employment.

OPA's MAR - Issued July 17, 2015OPA completed an investigation into allegations that a SPD officer was the owner of a private security and traffic control company that was not properly licensed and employing unlicensed security guards. Based on the results of that investigation, OPA recommended that SPD complete a total reform of its secondary employment system without delay, to include:

1. Clear policies, regulations and procedures regarding employment of SPD officers; 2. Real-time tracking of time worked, both on and off duty (including overtime), by SPD officers to ensure they are getting the rest and recovery needed in between shifts; 3. A system of contracting by outside employers that is fair, transparent, and accessible to all officers to avoid favoritism and actual or perceived conflicts of interests; 4. Robust supervision and oversight by SPD of officers working off duty 5. Compensation for both officers and the City adequate to ensure recognition of the costs associated with training, equipment, etc.

SPD's Response - Issued July 28, 2015SPD confirmed receipt of OPA's Management Action Recommendation and the Chief indicated a desire to resolve the secondary employment issue with great urgency, but did not provide any additional information as to the proposed action to be taken.

OPA Second MAR - Issued April 11, 2016Subsequent to the initial MAR on this topic issued by OPA in July of 2015, three cases came to the attention of OPA which promoted a need to reiterate the previous recommendations of the first MAR. In the subsequent MAR, OPA identified three larger areas of concern with the respect to the status of "secondary employment" within SPD:

1. Officer Safety - Some SPD Officers are working solo shifts, where police best practices require at least two officers at any incident. 2. Officer Fatigue: Inability for SPD to properly track the number of secondary employment hours used creates opportunity for officers to be fatigued when arriving for their SPD shift. 3. Conflicts of Interest: OPA has evidence of a situation where a fully uniformed SPD officer, while working secondary employment failed to perform his obligations under SPD policy to assist an assault victim, but rather assisted the store personnel in removing the assault victim because the store felt she was making a disturbance.

SPD's Second Response - Issued April 18, 2016SPD Chief wrote a letter to Director Murphy indicating her agreement with the concerns OPA raised regarding how SPD authorizes and manages secondary employment and pointed out that SPD had outlined part of their action steps in a March 15, 2016 memorandum in response to the City Auditor's report on officer overtime (see above for more details). SPD indicates they are in the process of procuring a new staffing and scheduling application that will allow real-time visibility into overtime assignments and secondary employment, but cautioned that addressing all the OPA recommendations would take time due to the complexity of the issue.

SPD's Response - Issued November 23, 2016SPD informed OPA the Department is currently in bargaining sessions with the unions regarding proposed changes to the secondary employment policy. In addition, SPD is looking to procure a workforce management system which would enable better tracking the overtime and off-duty work of officers. OPA will be looking for SPD to address all the recommendations made in both MARs.

SPD's Response - Issued November 13, 2017SPD has long-identified secondary employment as a substantial area of risk and has proactively sought City support to implement better accountability measures around this work. In Spring 2016, SPD identified a software solution that would provide both greater visibility to the Department as to where and when officers are working off-duty and assure that all approved officers had equal access to opportunities; the Department did not by itself, however, have authority or capacity to move forward with that solution as an exclusive process. Beginning in September 2017, pursuant to Executive Ordinance 2017-09, SPD has established an internal taskforce to work with City partners and, by November 14, 2017, will submit to the Mayor its proposal and workplan for bringing in-house the scheduling of all off-duty work performed in uniform and/or under the authority of an SPD commission.

Status - IN PROGRESSOPA submitted a second MAR on this topic to the SPD Chief of Police on November 9, 2017. SPD has acknowledged receipt of the MAR, and has promised a response by November 30, 2017.

OPA's MAR - Issued September 21, 2016An OPA investigation raised concerns regarding the practical application of SPD's pursuit policy, a concern which has arisen in previous OPA reviews of similar incidents. OPA recommended SPD modify its Vehicle Eluding/Pursuits Policy (§13.031) so that all pursuits, including those in which an officer fails to activate his or her emergency lights and siren as required, are subject to the same prudent restrictions and regulations.

SPD's Response - October 21, 2016SPD agreed the policy definition of "pursuit" could be subject to misinterpretation, and therefore the Audit, Policy, and Professional Standards Section will revisit this policy and its definitions to determine what clarifications may be appropriate given both the concern OPA raised and the statute on which the policy is based. Additionally, the SPD Senior Counsel will work with OPA to identify the cases which have raised this concern before to follow up with bureau commanders as appropriate.

SPD's Response - November 23, 2016SPD informed OPA the Department provided its proposed policy revisions to Manual Section 13.031 to the DOJ and Monitoring Team on July 7, 2016, and as of their letter have not heard back from either.

OPA Second MAR - Issued November 9, 2017Subsequent to the initial MAR on this topic issue by OPA on September 21, 2016, OPA investigated an allegation that several SPD employees may have engaged in an out of policy pursuit. During the course of this investigation, several issues concerning the Department’s pursuit policy were raised and, in OPA’s opinion, suggested a need to further revise and clarify this policy. The Management Action Recommendation (MAR) made herein echoes, in part, a prior recommendation made by OPA. In this subsequent MAR, OPA has identified two additional areas of concern with respect to SPD’s vehicle pursuit policy:

• The Department clarify its pursuit policy to explicitly prohibit unmarked vehicles that do not have emergency equipment from engaging in pursuits or from engaging in vehicle operations consistent with engaging in a pursuit. Moreover, even for unmarked vehicles that do have emergency equipment, the Department should consider adding guidance concerning when it is appropriate for such vehicles to engage in a pursuit. Additionally, OPA requests that the policy be clarified to instruct that officers who engage in a pursuit while driving an unmarked vehicle are also required to complete Blue Team Vehicle Pursuit entries.

• The Department clarify crimes for which officers may pursue as officers expressed confusion regarding this portion of the policy.

SPD disagreed with the OPA recommendation to revisit the policy’s definition of “pursuit” and is not convinced that there is confusion amongst the rank and file as to what driving behavior constitutes a “pursuit.” However, if a pattern of misunderstanding of the state law or SPD policy is determined by OPA to exist the SPD Chief Legal Officer has been directed to follow up as appropriate.

The two additional recommendations are being addressed with two steps that are in progress as of the writing of the response.

• Revisions to Section 13.031 will (1) make clear that a failure to activate emergency equipment does not remove the exercise of statutory driving privileges from that policy and (2) will provide guidance around circumstances in which pursuits are prohibited. Requirements around Blue Team reporting will also be clarified.

• The Education and Training Section is in the process of finalizing the curriculum for updated emergency vehicle operations (EVOC) training, scheduled to being in early 2018.

Status - IN PROGRESSOPA contacted SPD regarding the status of SPD's actions regarding this MAR on October 13, 2017 and as of November 13, 2017 this MAR is still in progress. SPD indicated that policies related to this MAR were under development within SPD's Audit, Policy, and Research Section.

OPA's MAR - Issued August 25, 2016OPA completed an investigation into a complaint that SPD officers encouraged a burglary victim to arrange a meeting with someone the victim believed was selling property taken in the burglary. The victim set up the meeting with the seller and called 911 for assistance. Unfortunately, no officers were available at that time; the victim and several associates went forward with the meeting. During the meeting, a confrontation ensued during which the seller brandished a handgun. Fortunately, no shots were fired and no one was injured. The stolen property was not recovered. OPA recommended SPD direct all officers to cease recommending to crime victims that they arrange or in any way become involved in recovering property stolen, and if not to develop and publish clear guidelines and limitations governing this practice so as to decrease the potential risks to involved parties.

SPD's Response - September 15, 2016SPD acknowledged OPA's concerns, but noted it is not de facto SPD practice to encourage crime victims to recover their own stolen property, outside of highly controlled and coordinated investigations by specialized teams and detectives. The Chief directed precinct commanders to ensure that this practice is immediately discontinued to the extent it is being used. Additionally, SPD's Audit, Policy, and Research Section is finalizing a draft policy to govern circumstances and protocols when specialized teams, officers or detectives may coordinate with cooperating victims to recover stolen property, and to assure appropriate supervisory oversight at all stages of the process.

OPA's MAR - December 5, 2017OPA investigated an allegation that a sergeant failed to ensure that a complaint of pain from handcuffs was properly documented and investigated. The subject was handcuffed by officers after his arrest and was placed into a patrol vehicle to be transported to the precinct. At that time, after the handcuffing had already been effectuated, the subject complained of pain from the handcuffs. The complaint of pain was reported to the Named Employee by the arresting officers. The Named Employee instructed the officers that a complaint of pain unrelated to the actual act of handcuffing the subject was not a reportable use of force and no documentation need to be completed. During the course of the OPA investigation the officers and the Named Employee asserted that the SPD policy was unclear as to whether a Type 1 Use of Force report was required under these circumstances. Additionally, the Named Employee told OPA that at the time of the incident they were under guidance from supervisors and from training that wearing of handcuffs was not a reportable Use of Force and that the complaint of pain at that time was not a reportable Use of Force.

OPA recommended that the SPD verify with the Training Unit what training is being provided to officers on this issue. If the Training Unit is training SPD employees to not report or document complaints of pain from handcuffs made at some point after handcuffing, the Training Unit should provide a Department-wide corrective training update. If the Training Unit is not providing incorrect training in this regard, the Department should still consider sending a Department-wide reminder that the reporting and documenting of these complaints is expected and should emphasize this issue at the next scheduled training on this topic.

Status - IN PROGRESSOPA contacted SPD regarding the status of SPD's actions pertaining to this MAR on October 13, 2017. As of November 13, 2017 SPD indicated that policies related to this MAR were under development within SPD's Audit, Policy, and Research Section.

OPA's MAR - Issued March 18, 2016OPA investigated a Force Review Board referral questioning the justification for at least some of the pepper balls fired at one or more persons during a demonstration event. The investigation revealed the use of the pepper balls may not have been consistent with the requirements of various SPD use-of-force policies. In particular, the written force report submitted by the officer who deployed the pepper balls appeared to indicate some of the pepper balls were launched for the sole purpose of marking a fleeing suspect for later identification and arrest. OPA recommended that SPD develop clear policy governing the use of each less-lethal projectile and its corresponding launcher including, but not limited to, pepper balls.

SPD's Response - April 4, 2016SPD indicated agreement with OPA's recommendation and would proceed to develop a clear policy around the use of this tool, reemphasizing their concerns and agreements from their January 8, 2016 letter regarding OPA's recommendations following the 2015 May Day Event.

SPD's Response - November 23, 2016 SPD informed OPA the Department had submitted its proposed policy revisions to all of Title 8 - Use of Force, including 8.300 - Tools, to the DOJ and Monitoring Team on July 7, 2017. SPD indicated they have not received comment back from either as of their letter.

Status - COMPLETED-ALLEffective May 1, 2017 SPD updated SPD Policy Manual section 13.080 addressing all of the recommendations from this MAR regarding the Use of Department Vehicles. Chief O'Toole sent a letter dated July 5, 2017 that all of the recommendations have been met by the updated SPD Policy Manual section. This MAR is completed.

OPA's MAR - Issued February 13, 2017OPA investigated allegations that a SPD employee may have been making unauthorized use of an unmarked SPD vehicle. In the course of this investigation it was determined that the Named Employee was on 24-hour call, seven days a week due to his specialty assignment and had been assigned a Department vehicle so that he could respond directly when called out. Policy Section 13.080 does not address the issue of on-call employees with a "take home" Department vehicle who need to attend the ordinary activities of their personal and family lives. In the absence of clear policy guidance regarding "take home" vehicles, employees who are on call are left to operate in a gray area and risk being accused of improper use of Department vehicles. Therefore, OPA recommended SPD revise Policy Section 13.080 Use of Department Vehicles to address the following issues:

provide clear guidelines to supervisors for the authorization of non-SPD passengers in Department vehicles

provide clear guidelines to supervisors for the authorization of temporary overnight use of a Department vehicle

reconcile the inconsistency between the authorization of a "take home" vehicle and the prohibition against taking a Department vehicle outside the city limits

provide clear and practical policy guidance and regulations regarding the use of Department vehicles by those who are expected to be on-call and available to respond immediately when summoned

SPD's Response - Issued March 14, 2017 SPD has asked the Audit, Policy and Research Section to review Policy Section 13.080 with regards to the points raised in the MAR. SPD indicated they will look to provide increased clarity by drawing a distinction between employees who work in an "on call" status with simultaneous obligations and employee who may be requested to respond during unscheduled hours (24-7) to an incident.

Status - COMPLETED-SOMEOn November 19, 2016, in anticipation of publishing this report, OPA sought information on the status of SPD's actions regarding this MAR. On November 23, 2016, SPD informed OPA that SPD believes this was an "isolated matter that involved a SW Precinct Community Police Team Officer" and they have advised the Seattle Housing Authority that no such offers can be accepted and should not be extended. SPD indicated they did not believe further action or a policy revision were needed to address this issue.

OPA's MAR - Issued April 20, 2015OPA investigated an allegation of an employee improperly accepting rent-free use of a Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) unit for family residential purposes. OPA's investigation determined the arrangement to have a SPD officer live without cost in a SHA unit was initiated by SHA as part of a program that allows federally funded housing complexes to set aside one unit for living space for a "security station." The OPA investigation found that SHA specifically requested that the SPD officer in question be offered the opportunity to live in the unit so as to provide an on-site SPD presence and deliver better policing services. This arrangement was approved by the officer's precinct commander at the time and continued for more than four years until the involved employee was notified of the OPA investigation. OPA recommended that SPD should (1) conduct an audit to determine if other Department employees were similarly situated; (2) review those arrangements to determine their appropriateness and if they should continue; and (3) establish clear policy and/or practice by which all such arrangements in the future will be adequately scrutinized for any actual or apparent legal prohibitions or ethical barriers.

Status - COMPLETED-ALLSPD Manual Policy Section 13.080 11. Prohibited Activities During Use of Department Vehicles was updated to prohibit SPD employees from driving an unmarked vehicle in an HOV lane with no passengers, except during an emergency response, which would require the use of emergency lights and/or siren. While SPD may have conducted training or communicated the importance of SPD sworn officers adhering to RCW and WAC regarding the use of unmarked vehicles in the HOV, OPA has not receive confirmation of this. OPA encourages SPD to continue to promote to its employee the need to remove even the appearance of a double-standard in order to build and maintain trust with the community it serves.

OPA's MAR - Issued September 29, 2015OPA received complaints from an individual regarding the use of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes by SPD employees driving unmarked SPD vehicles with a single occupant (the driver). With the goal of aiding SPD to maintain its reservoir of public trust, OPA recommended that SPD direct its employees to adhere to the RCW and WAC regarding unmarked vehicles and their use in the HOV lanes. Employees operating unmarked SPD vehicles while responding to emergency situations in the HOV lanes should be required to employ the use of the emergency lights and/or siren as a means to notify the public of their emergency response.

SPD's Response - NONEOPA did not receive a receipt or response from SPD regarding this MAR.

Status - COMPLETED-ALLOPA contacted SPD regarding the status of SPD's actions regarding this MAR and as of November 13, 2017 this MAR is completed. On July 19, 2017, the department issued an eDirective related to revised SPD policy 16.090 (9) that addressed this MAR.

OPA's MAR - Issued November 5, 2015Arising out of an incident in which members of the SPD SWAT Team did not fully audio and video record all their police activities, OPA became aware of the fact that SWAT and the Hostage Negotiations Team ("HNT") both believed they were exempt from this requirement. Research on our part found there had been a long-standing practice of not requiring SWAT and HNT to record while they were tactically deployed. However, under the current in-car video policy, such exemptions must be specifically granted by the Chief on a unit-by-unit basis. OPA requested the SPD Policy Manual sections be revised and those users, for whom the nature of their activities make it impractical to use their in-car video systems, should be listed in the policy, along with the specific activities of any such who are being exempted.

SPD's Response - Issued November 13, 2017On July 19, 2017, the department issued eDirective 17-00028 for the revised SPD policy 16.090 – In-Car and Body-Worn Video 9. Specialized Units May Request Exceptions. The policy directs any unit that falls under the “approved exceptions” status to submit a memo to the Chief of Police.

OPA's MAR - Issued December 29, 2015During OPA's investigation involving an In-Car Video (ICV) violation, there appeared to be some confusion as to the use of the terms "employee" and "officer," and whether the different terms created different obligations to record under SPD policy. OPA recommended the policy be reviewed and modified to provide clarity, and a Department Directive be issued to ensure universal compliance with the requirement that all police activity be recorded regardless of rank or role of the employee, if they are equipped with the capability to audio and video record.

Status - COMPLETED-ALLOn October 1, 2015, SPD issued Directive Number 15-00044 outlining SPD Manual Section 5.180 which implemented OPA's recommendations to SPD and provided that SPD officers may only carry weapons into King County Superior Court when on official Department business and indicated what circumstances qualify as official Department business.

OPA's MAR - Issued May 22, 2015OPA completed an investigation into allegations that an off-duty SPD officer brought discredit on the Department when he violated King County Superior Court rules. Specifically, it was alleged that the SPD employee, who was in plain clothes and armed, told the King County Sheriff deputies working the security checkpoint at the courthouse that he was on official business when, in fact, he was not. Courthouse rules only allow law enforcement officers to be armed in the courthouse if they are engaged in official business. OPA recommended SPD clearly articulate through policy and/or directive the conditions under which commissioned personnel are considered to be on official Department business.

Status - COMPLETED-DECLINED ACTIONOPA last contacted SPD on November 19, 2016, seeking information on the status of SPD's actions regarding this MAR. SPD did not provide an update in their November 23, 2016 letter addressing other "in progress" Management Action Recommendations. On December 14, 2016, SPD clarified they considered this issued resolved because the concerns are addressed through SPD Manual Section 5.001 (2) and (12) and would be part of city-wide ethics training. SPD also indicates there is no copyright to the SPD logo and so long as sales are not for personal profit, such practices are not a violation of ethical rules. While OPA understands SPD sees no need for an explicit policy, OPA had concluded based on its investigation that a full audit into this practice should be performed by SPD and proper policies implemented to ensure adherence to ethical standards.

OPA's MAR - Issued April 18, 2016 OPA investigated allegations that a SPD officer used his position in the Department to personally profit from the sale of clothing items branded with SPD and SPD Specialty Unit logos. While the OPA investigation found no evidence to support the allegation that the named officer was selling the items under false pretenses or personally profited from their sales, it did reveal a host of potential ethical, financial and practical problems. Therefore, OPA recommended that SPD take the following steps:

1. Issue a Directive putting a halt to such activity. 2. Conduct an audit of all SPD divisions to determine the nature and extent of such activity. 3. Based on the results of the audit create policy which either prohibits or regulates such activity.

SPD's Response - May 2, 2016While SPD indicated they did not have concerns regarding the ethics of this particular practice, SPD did agreed to reach out to the Ethics and Elections Commission to confirm their understanding that nothing about the practice currently utilized by some units to sell items for profit towards the unit runs afoul of the City's ethics code. Additionally, SPD indicated they would have the Audit, Policy and Research Section conduct an audit to determine how widespread the practice is and to develop clear policies relating and with respect to reporting such activities.

OPA's MAR - Issued October 21, 2016The OPA investigation into allegations of inadequate follow-up investigations led to a surprising and disturbing discovery. With some exceptions, no one in SPD is assigned to conduct follow-up investigations into misdemeanor domestic violence (DV) crimes.

a. Implement a Domestic Violence Investigations Policy to be added to the Primary Investigations Chapter of the SPD Policy Manual. OPA recognizes development of this policy is already underway by SPD.b. Develop clear procedures and check lists for use by Patrol officers when responding to and investigating reports of DV crimes. This, too, is already under development by SPD.c. Develop resources for Patrol sergeants tasked with screening DV arrests and approving DV General Offense Reports.d. Develop a "Risk Assessment Tool" for use by first responders, sergeants and detectives in spotting potential early indicators of increased risk for DV victims. The DV Unit is already working on development of this tool.e. Develop a "Domestic Violence Investigations and Reporting" training course for Patrol officers and supervisors to cover best practices, policy and procedures relating to DV.f. Make DV Unit detectives available for after-hours response to significant incidents.

2. Evaluate the staffing requirements of the DV Unit to determine what additional supervisory and/or detective personnel are needed to ensure adequate follow-up investigations are conducted when misdemeanor DV cases have the potential for successful prosecution; and 3. Engage with the City and County Prosecutors to explore promising best practices in DV investigations and prosecutions that might be successfully adapted for use in Seattle and King County

SPD's Response - November 22, 2016SPD indicated they are developing a policy specific to Domestic Violence investigations to include procedures, checklists and risk assessment tools for officers responding to DV calls. In conjunction with the policies, training modules would be implemented to address best practices and procedures. Additional resources would be developed by SPD for Patrol sergeants tasked with screening DV Arrests, and additional staffing of the DV unit is being explored in collaboration with prosecutors and other system partners.

OPA's MAR - Issued June 1, 2015OPA completed an investigation into allegations where an SPD officer, working on a bicycle at a demonstration, quickly rode past the complainant and bumped the complainant's leg with the bicycle pedal, causing an abrasion. During that investigation OPA indicated there was no policy that specifically addressed the unique nature of a police bicycle operations. Given the extent to which bicycles are deployed by SPD, OPA recommended that SPD clearly articulate through written policy and/or procedure clear guidelines for the safe operation of police bicycles.

Status - COMPLETED-SOMEIn February of 2016, SPD implemented and updated SPD Manual Section 15.170 that included 15.170 POL-2 Preparing and Conducting Lineups. While the revised policy addresses both live and photographic lineups, there is no indication from the policy or from SPD that training was provided to Detectives and Detective Supervisors on this policy. OPA consulted various detective units who thought a training on this topic might have been developed, but never implemented. While OPA considers this matter closed, it encourages SPD to implement the developed training for detectives and conduct regular and refresher training for the use of both live and photographic lineups.

OPA's MAR - Issued December 23, 2014One case brought to light the need for improved training, clearer guidelines and increased supervision with respect to the use of photo lineups (photomontages) in identifying criminal suspects. The Director recommended that SPD establish a policy and clear set of procedures to govern the use of live and photographic lineups used for the purpose of identifying persons involved in criminal activity. Broad research into best practices and consultation with national experts on the topics was recommended to precede the development of this policy and these procedures. Furthermore, it was recommended that specific training in the understanding and use of this policy and these procedures be given to all new detectives and detective supervisors, as well as to all existing detectives and their supervisors on a regular and refresher basis.

SPD's Response - Issued April 10, 2015SPD's Audit, Police, and Research Section ("APRS") was tasked to draft a policy (SPD Manual 15.170), which is currently under internal review with subject-matter experts. Chief O'Toole requested the policy cover live and photographic lineups, and also provide direction on show-ups and identifications that occur out in the field. Training will presumably follow the implementation of this new policy.

Status - COMPLETED-SOMEWith updates to SPD Policy Manual section 14.090, the SPD’s November 13, 2017 response indicates they have addressed all seven of the Management Action Recommendations made by former OPA Director Murphy have been addressed through organizational changes, department policy and the CPE report.

OPA's MAR - Issued December 10, 2015This MAR made recommendations based on several protests and demonstrations observed by the OPA Director, as well as OPA's investigation into the use of force by SPD officers during the 2015 May Day protest and demonstration on the campus of Seattle Central College and the Capitol Hill neighborhood.

1. Use of Rubber Blast Ball Grenades (Blast-Balls): SPD re-evaluate how and under what circumstances officers use blast-balls as a means of moving or dispersing crowds of people. 2. Inventory and Control of Blast-Balls: SPD make immediate changes to its control and tracking of blast-balls. 3. Use of Less-lethal Projectiles: SPD review its policy and training with respect to the use of less-lethal projectiles in crowd management situations. 4. Role, Training and Expectation for Officers from Mutual Aid Agencies: SPD limit and more tightly control its use of officers from mutual aid agencies in direct crowd management assignments. 5. Documentation and Investigation of Force Used During Protests, Marches, Demonstrations and Other Crowd Control Operations: SPD study how it documents and investigates the use of force by officers during crowd management situations and demonstrations or protests. 6. More Visible Name and/or Serial Numbers for Officers: SPD find an appropriate means to provide more visible names and/or serial numbers for officers. 7. Policing Operations In Protests, Marches, Demonstrations and Other Crowd Control Situations: SPD rethink its approach to planning and providing policing services in relation to protests and demonstrations. Specifically, to collaborate with experts, to look beyond the confines of the American law enforcement establishment, which tends to use more military-style tactics.

1. Use of Rubber Blast Ball Grenades (blast-balls): SPD indicated they were working closely with a team of nationally recognized experts to evaluate the Department's response to the May Day 2015 protests to include evaluation of the appropriateness of blast-balls as a crowd management tool and the manner in which they were deployed. 2. Inventory and Control of Blast-balls: SPD indicated they agreed with the recommendation, which was also offered by the Force Review Board, and clarified that the Department maintains (as it has since this tool was first employed by the Department) a strict inventory of blast-balls by serial number, location, and type of munition. 3. Use of Less-lethal Projectiles: SPD indicated that they were working to review policies regarding less-lethal tools and exploring alternative options. This work, along with subsequent training, was going to be informed through SPD's collaboration with their external experts. 4. Role, Training and Expectation for Officers from Mutual Aid Agencies: SPD indicated this was a recommendation from the Force Review Board and was currently under discussion.5. Documentation and Investigation of Force Used During Protests, Marches, Demonstrations and Other Crowd Control Operations: SPD indicated that video recording the actions of officers during demonstrations could be problematic under Seattle's Intelligence Ordinance. Additionally, SPD indicated that since May Day of 2015, Manual Section 8.500 (POL 6 - effective September 1, 2015) was implemented to include reviewing use of force for crowd management and that SPD would be moving forward with revisions to Manual Section 14.090 (Crowd Management). 6. More Visible Name and/or Serial Numbers for Officers: SPD agreed and indicated they were in the process of obtaining cost estimates and developing an implementation plan for adding name/serial numbers to hard suits, bikes and/or helmets. 7. Policing Operations in Protests, Marches, Demonstrations and Other Crowd Control Situations: SPD indicated that they were engaged in this process in collaboration with the DOJ, the Monitoring Team, and the team of experts assembled.

SPD's Response - Issued November 23, 2016SPD informed OPA that Manual Section 14.090 - Crowd Management was revised with feedback from the Community Police Commission and was provided to the DOJ and Monitoring team for approval and filing with the Federal court on November 15, 2016. While an update to crowd management policy addresses portions of the recommendations made by OPA, it does not sufficiently address all the issues raised by OPA. Moreover, SPD has specifically rejected portions of the recommendations, for example, they have indicated they will not be taking any action on Recommendation #5 regarding additional video recording of the actions of officers during protests. Until the review of the policy is completed and SPD has been able to take final action, OPA will maintain this MAR as in progress.

SPD's Response - Issued November 13, 2017SPD notified OPA that in addition to revising the department’s Manual, Policy 14.090 Crowd Management, at the request of SPD, the Center for Policing Equity (CPE) Organization was asked to objectively review and evaluate all the department’s policies with respect to crowd management at demonstrations, the report was published April 2017. SPD had indicated that they have addressed all seven of the Management Action Recommendations made by former OPA Director Murphy have been addressed through organizational changes, department policy and the CPE report.

OPA's MAR - Issued February 13, 2015An investigation into an integrity allegation made against an SPD employee's use of the SeaPark garage outside the designated SPD area revealed a lack of guidelines as to whether or not employees authorized to park in the SPD secured area are permitted to park in other areas of the garage. The Director recommended that SPD Policy Manual be amended to provide clear guidance to SPD Employees concerning where they may and may not park in the SeaPark Garage.

OPA's MAR - Issued September 6, 2014An investigation into a Type 2 Use-of-Force case revealed that scheduled and unscheduled absences from work by supervisors and management present a significant impediment to the timely completion of chain-of-command reviews of use of force incidents. In more than one case, OPA, along with the Force Review Board and members of the Monitoring Team, noted the review process comes to a halt for days or even weeks while a supervisor or manager is absent from work (e.g., vacation, sick leave, training, etc.).

The Director recommended SPD make the necessary process changes to ensure pending force reviews are either completed before a supervisor goes on leave or, in the case of an unplanned absence of a supervisor, are conducted by another supervisor of the same rank.

SPD's Response - April 10, 2015SPD agreed with the OPA recommendations and indicated SPD had drafted an updated Use-of-Force policy, currently under review by the DOJ and Monitoring Team addresses the timeliness issue.